Why Atheism Will Replace Religion: New Evidence

Atheists are heavily concentrated in economically developed countries, particularly the social democracies of Europe. In underdeveloped countries, there are virtually no atheists. Atheism is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. Why do modern conditions produce atheism? In a new study to be published in August, I provided compelling evidence that atheism increases along with the quality of life (1).

First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, a clear pattern can be discerned. In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no atheism (2). Belief in God declines in more developed countries and atheism is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1%.

The question of why economically developed countries turn to atheism has been batted around by anthropologists for about eighty years. Anthropologist James Fraser proposed that scientific prediction and control of nature supplants religion as a means of controlling uncertainty in our lives. This hunch is supported by data showing that the more educated countries have higher levels of non belief and there are strong correlations between atheism and intelligence.

Atheists are more likely to be college-educated people who live in cities and they are highly concentrated in the social democracies of Europe. Atheism thus blossoms amid affluence where most people feel economically secure. But why?

It seems that people turn to religion as a salve for the difficulties and uncertainties of their lives. In social democracies, there is less fear and uncertainty about the future because social welfare programs provide a safety net and better health care means that fewer people can expect to die young. People who are less vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature feel more in control of their lives and less in need of religion. Hence my finding of belief in God being higher in countries with a heavy load of infectious diseases.

In my new study of 137 countries (1), I also found that atheism increases for countries with a well-developed welfare state (as indexed by high taxation rates). Moreover, countries with a more equal distribution of income had more atheists. My study improved on earlier research by taking account of whether a country is mostly Moslem (where atheism is criminalized) or formerly Communist (where religion was suppressed) and accounted for three-quarters of country differences in atheism.

In addition to being the opium of the people (as Karl Marx contemptuously phrased it), religion may also promote fertility, particularly by promoting marriage (3). Large families are preferred in agricultural countries as a source of free labor. In developed countries, by contrast, women have exceptionally small families. I found that atheism was lower in countries where a lot of people worked on the land.

Even the psychological functions of religion face stiff competition today. In modern societies, when people experience psychological difficulties they turn to their doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. They want a scientific fix and prefer the real psychotropic medicines dished out by physicians to the metaphorical opiates offered by religion. No wonder that atheism increases along with third-level educational enrollment (1).

The reasons that churches lose ground in developed countries can be summarized in market terms. First, with better science, and with government safety nets, and smaller families, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion. At the same time many alternative products are being offered, such as psychotropic medicines and electronic entertainment that have fewer strings attached and that do not require slavish conformity to unscientific beliefs.

2. Zuckerman, P. (2007). Atheism: Contemporary numbers and patterns. In M. Martin (ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This book is not held by any U.S. Library. 3. Sanderson, S. K. (2008). Adaptation, evolution, and religion. Religion, 38, 141-156.

Your post should be in the dictionary next to "No True Scotsman Fallacy".

"Atheist" means "lacking belief in god". It says nothing about anything else. You can be an atheist and still believe in astrology or ghosts. Surely someone as rational and thoughtful as you would understand this.

Your post should be in the dictionary next to "No True Scotsman Fallacy".

"Atheist" means "lacking belief in god". It says nothing about anything else. You can be an atheist and still believe in astrology or ghosts. Surely someone as rational and thoughtful as you would understand this.

It's not simply "lacking belief in god," as that would mean many people of other religions are atheists, it's closer to "lack of belief in the supernatural." Magical forces that control astrology and the like fall under that banner for many people.

goddess forbid that there might be a God of the Heavens. At least, according to you. You know, the scientist's theorize that previous to modern science was astrology, the first science. Prior to that was nephomancy, knowing what's about to happen by seeing in the clouds. before that was no one else but the goddess. Why do you mention Yahweh? Well, that's your deep-seated fear. And I mean to tell you, it's deep. because that God is considered "Lord of Hosts" and that's maybe armies of men coming to rape and pillage. Goddess can't protect you, and you've snubbed Lord of Hosts. Last is to cut down that cloudscapes god. Know what'll happen then? You'll probably end up selling cigarettes with the rest of the flat-earth-level-of-functioning scientists who can lip it that gods-don't-make-no-junk-science. What gods, you demand? your idols of denial of climate change, exchanged for your idols of pretense that you can stop it from happening, probably with something like FrankenAir that your genetically modifying buddies will become the new Team Christ superheroes with.

Why is it that when anyone tries to talk about religion in a calm, objective way it always brings out those I would term "the crazies/nutso's/zealots/'hardcore believers'/those that heal by faith aka 'faith-healers'"?

The article simply states that atheism is higher in countries where resources and education are more readily available and attainable.

That's it.

The author makes no disconcerting comments as to "who's right". It's amazing, in my experience those that identify as religious tend to be some of the most highly sensitive people i have ever met, really.

I know that I am being one of those terrible "I agree" people that have nothing to add but I cannot help it. No where in the article does the author say that Atheism or Christianity is stupid. Fingers are not being pointed and nothing harmful is being said. I find this article very informational and non-biased. I wish people would actually pay attention to the content instead of reading the title and saying "Oh, well the author must support such and such and I can't believe this person for writing something that goes against what I believe so it must be wrong." Please, if you are going to comment on the article then actually read it once, maybe even twice, before sharing your nonsense with other readers. I am glad that Andrew and other people have taken the time to read the article and see it for what it is.

"The article simply states that atheism is higher in countries where resources and education are more readily available and attainable."

The article makes lots of other valid points, too. It's the title that's the problem for me, and I'm a (highly sensitive?) atheist.

The assertion in the title that atheism will increase rests on an assumption that prosperity and education will continue to increase, not any evidence in this specific research.

I'm a bit surprised that anyone can be so sanguine, not to say complacent, just now. I would not be amazed if people who see their living standards threatened and their future prospects diminishing are more likely to be, or become, religious, and that religion would therefore rise in some places, if not overall, at least in the short term. That possibility would surely also be in line with this research.

Submitted by Chris (aka teenager in pj's on lazboy) on November 11, 2011 - 12:11pm

Well, I'm a Christian, I've seen how this sort of thing works, and I've got to say I thoroughly dislike how heated things get in argument about religion vs. atheism and when nobody comes away in the least bit moved or satisfied. However, (and I'm not saying this article does this, but) you must understand that when you start trying to talk about "fictional characters such as God", you attack a part of any Christian. It would be like somebody insulting your best friend or taking a whack at him, that's the kind of relationship we have with the God we believe in and why we can't help feeling the need to speak out. You may say "calm, objective way" but to the unprepared Christian, by eliminating even the possibility of God, you have already made it a personal attack. I am all for rational debate, it's a very educational process if done correctly, but I am afraid I cannot be taken from my beliefs; the life I have in Christ is far better than one without in my opinion, so in the all-too-appropriate words of CS Lewis in The Silver Chair, "We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia." and that's the truth. I believe Jesus still loves you even if you refuse to acknowledge him.

Submitted by James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil on March 18, 2012 - 8:50am

Then why haven't you made any rational points. All you have said is that you're offended when people point out that there is no more evidence for any god than there is for Paul Bunyan.

Theists are making the claims. The burden of proof is on them. Atheists are mostly saying, there is no proof for and a certain body of proof against any gods.

Like may atheists, I would have to change my position if definite, undeniable proof were presented. But quoting the bible, circular arguments, and "you must have faith" are not proof nor "rational debate".

Jesus does not love anyone because there is no proof that he ever existed. There is not a single contemporary account of any jesus and lots of proof against. Look up Krishna, Horus, Attis, and Mithra. Learn how the jesus myth originated.

It is out of God's character to offer proof. He says, all creation declares His existence, but this is not proof if you still choose to believe the cosmic accident theories. Throughout the Bible God requires faithful obedience. Think of this: Which would You treasure more, a mechanical robot/doll that would obey your every command, or a living thing with a free will that could choose to do anything but by faith (without proof) was totally dedicated to serving and honoring you?

What evidence is in plain sight? You make the usual arrogant theist assumptions and expect everyone to believe them because you said it. Not everyone is as determinedly stupid as you are.

There is not, and never has been, any evidence of any god. Because willfully ignorant people say there is and are actually dumb enough to believe it, doesn't make it true. For a long time, people believed the sun revolved around the earth, too. That didn't make it true.

Demonstrate some undeniable evidence of your god and I will change my position. What will it take to get you to change yours? I suspect nothing as you have clearly discarded facts and rational thinking so long ago that you are now incapable of even recognizing either.

love exposing your determined ignorance. very time I have asked for proof it has been the same thing. To wit: "Prove anything you have ever said is true or prove anything I have ever posted is not true."

Still you evade doing that by either pretending it was never said or pretending you don't understand.

I have never asked for statistical averages or even mentioned them. That clumsy attempt at changing the subject doesn't fool anyone.

You are a willfully ignorant, stubbornly stupid intellectual and ethical coward.

Again, shown undeniable proof of any god, I will change my position. What will it take for you to change yours? A brain implant?

You are a waste of the oxygen you breath and the very fact of your continued existence lowers the mental and moral levels of all humanity. Even so, you delight in demonstrating that even a waste of protoplasm like you can access a computer somewhere and display levels of despicable dumbness beyond the reach of most tomatoes.

And yet...there is no incontrovertible evidence that God, a God, or supernatural things don't exist.

The primary argument is that supernatural phenomenon are not necessary in explanations of things. That alone doesn't disprove he existence of supernatural phenomena.

The axiomatic assumption is that either supernatuaral phenomena exist, or they don't. Neither one can be definitively proven, and as such, remains axiomatic. As Kurt Goedel demonstrated, any system is inevitably self referential, so even though you claim your system to be superior and based on logic, it simply has a different original axiom.

This means that all of your insulting words merely reflect your own ignorance.

Goodness gracious, aren't you a hater. That is why the world is so screwed up, people can't even agree to disagree without attacking each other. But humans are humans, we think we are the best thing since sliced bread and that we evolved from APES!! I believe apes are more civil. They certainly don't spend time bashing/killing/maiming each other like humans do.

And we really think we are all that?

I believe we NEED a God, who understands and takes care of us. And I am glad He is in my life. It would be immensely sad for me to think that my life would end after physical death. When Heaven is waiting if we do the right things. I don't try to convince dogmatic atheists. It is a waste of breath and effort. I can observe this universe and know it simply didn't come out of nothing. The Big Bang had a driving force, an intelligence behind it that we as simple humans don't have the capacity to fully comprehend. I don't think the big bang was a magic event, something had to be behind it. GOD.

willful ignorance and stubborn stupidity. You have exhibited nothing else.

Yu are also wrong about apes. The gorillas kill their young and each other. Chimpanzees are violent and kill rival groups while maintaining position in their own groups by violence and threats. That you would not know these things is no surprise. You're astoundingly ignorant on all other subjects, too.

Again, you "believe", not know. All you have ever done here is prove that you will never respond to requests for any proof of your assertions and have irrational beliefs that you stubbornly stick to without any evidence of them at all.

Only you theists insist that science says the Universe comes from nothing. Then, at the same time, you insist your god came from nothing and created the universe from nothing. The contradictions in your statements don't bother you a bit more than the myriad contradictions in your babble.

As always, you theists have only one answer for everything, "God did it." That means you don't have to know anything, think, or accept obvious facts, All good things for you, I'm sure. You're incapable of understanding or doing any of them.

It's OK to be ignorant, that can be cured by learning. Willful ignorance, is far worse, it's saying, "I know nothing and I don;t want to know anything. I'm happier being stupid. A drunk is generally happier than a sober man, too. Does that make drunkenness desirable?

YOU can believe anything you want. That doesn't make you right, appear smarter or more useful as a person. If you insist upon flouting your ignorance in public, expect to continue to be treated with disdain, disgust, and derision.

BTW, answer the questions! Prove your god exists. Prove you are not a willfully ignorant moron.

..... 2) Rules of Conduct. We (psychology today)are the sole interpreter of the Site rules of conduct described in these Terms of Use. Users who violate these rules may have their access and use of the Site suspended or terminated at our discretion. We may at any time take any action with regard to user materials that we deem in our sole discretion to be necessary or appropriate.

a) Posting Rules.

i)....
(5) anything that is sexually explicit, obscene, libelous, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, or hateful; or (6) anything that is embarrassing or offensive to another person, group or entity.

..... 2) Rules of Conduct. We (psychology today)are the sole interpreter of the Site rules of conduct described in these Terms of Use. Users who violate these rules may have their access and use of the Site suspended or terminated at our discretion. We may at any time take any action with regard to user materials that we deem in our sole discretion to be necessary or appropriate.

a) Posting Rules.

i)....
(5) anything that is sexually explicit, obscene, libelous, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, or hateful; or (6) anything that is embarrassing or offensive to another person, group or entity.

Please demonstrate to me why God does not exist. Scientifically prove it. It is impossible, especially since science is created by humans that are flawed. As I recall, science claimed for a long time that the world was flat. That the sun revolved around the earth. How can you attempt to prove ANYTHING with a method that was created by HUMANS? And really, your commentary is inflammatory. Name calling; how old are you anyway? I don't bother trying to change the minds of dogmatic atheists any more than I would try to change the color of my skin. It is pointless. I don't care what you believe. I know God exists and I don't give a damn about proving it to you. Because your mind is already made up. Science! Big deal.

When you have nothing to present as facts, your only recourse is to try to change the subject.

God does not exist because there is not the slightest bit of evidence of any god.

As I said, science NEVER claimed the world was flat, I explained why. It was religion that insisted the sun revolved around the earth, even after soled evidence demonstrated neither of these was true. But after thousands of years of religion lying about everything, it isn't surprising that you would tell these lies. Truth and rational thinking have no place in your world.

We can prove most things by a method created by humans. That's why we can put robots on Mars and that dripping that rock on your foot works every time, without fail.

Mu comment is inflammatory? My comments are true. You are a liar, a fool, and a hypocrite. That's not name-calling, it's a statement of fact supported by your increasingly absurd posts.

Again. you try to change the subject. Each time it shows you up for what you are. An arrogant asshole that is terrified of the truth because it will shatter your most cherished delusions.

Science is a big deal, it's what's allowing you to show what a worthless example of a human being you are. Doesn't irony of that strike you at all?

God does not exist. Prove it or STFU and slink away like the sewer rat you are.

Posters - Im convinced the 'character' called 'james smith' is a construct of the Psychology Today team, & not a genuine poster at all, (with a fake website & photographs to support the pretense).
'His' posts are usually extremely insulting, offensive, and repetitive, and offer no reasoned argument, only abuse of other posters.
This seems to me to be a deliberate ploy, perhaps to attempt to stir up passion, where none may be felt, in order the heat up the discussion.
Or, maybe to aid ongoing psych. research, of a specific kind, in some way.
I have never come across another forum where this kind of abusive post is permitted, - I am sure that many contributors must have complained already, to no avail.

I recommend that you ignore *all posts that are abusive*. Whether purporting to come from a 'james smith' (as attached, below) or any other poster.

James Smith wrote:

When you have nothing to present as facts, your only recourse is to try to change the subject.

God does not exist because there is not the slightest bit of evidence of any god.

As I said, science NEVER claimed the world was flat, I explained why. It was religion that insisted the sun revolved around the earth, even after soled evidence demonstrated neither of these was true. But after thousands of years of religion lying about everything, it isn't surprising that you would tell these lies. Truth and rational thinking have no place in your world.

We can prove most things by a method created by humans. That's why we can put robots on Mars and that dripping that rock on your foot works every time, without fail.

Mu comment is inflammatory? My comments are true. You are a liar, a fool, and a hypocrite. That's not name-calling, it's a statement of fact supported by your increasingly absurd posts.

Again. you try to change the subject. Each time it shows you up for what you are. An arrogant asshole that is terrified of the truth because it will shatter your most cherished delusions.

Science is a big deal, it's what's allowing you to show what a worthless example of a human being you are. Doesn't irony of that strike you at all?

God does not exist. Prove it or STFU and slink away like the sewer rat you are.

Ensnaturae, you want to believe that I am not real because you cannot stand it that I tell the truth. I've invited you personally to prove that anything I have posted is not true. You have not even tried. Instead, you ignore anything you cannot answer.

You invent this fantasy that the site administrators have invented my7 ID and pages of proof of who and what I am. That is much easier than admitting to facts, isn't it? Denial of facts and belief in fantasies is the very foundation of religion, so it is no surprise you carry it into other areas, too.

You claim I am offensive. That's no surprise either. I use provable facts and those are offensive to you because facts and rational thi8nking are always fatal to any religion.

I recommend to everyone that you tell Ensnaturae what a liar and fool he is. He (if it is a he) hides behind a fake name and his keyboard to spout religious threats and absurdities. Unlike Ensnaturae, I have posted my proofs of my identity and some things I have done on my photobucket page (photobucket.com/slrman) for all to see, examine and verify for themselves. Please feel free to do so and then ask yourselves, "Would the site administrators go to this level of effort and deceit to attract more poster t a site that is already well visited? The religious reich would lie and cheat like that. That could be why they assume everyone else is as dishonest as they are. Projection is a well-documented psychological trait.

Again, Ensnaturae, prove anything have ever posted is not true. Each time you ignore that challenge, you only prove that am correct about you being a mental and moral coward, liar, and hypocrite.

..... 2) Rules of Conduct. We (psychology today)are the sole interpreter of the Site rules of conduct described in these Terms of Use. Users who violate these rules may have their access and use of the Site suspended or terminated at our discretion. We may at any time take any action with regard to user materials that we deem in our sole discretion to be necessary or appropriate.

a) Posting Rules.

i)....
(5) anything that is sexually explicit, obscene, libelous, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, or hateful; or (6) anything that is embarrassing or offensive to another person, group or entity.

..... 2) Rules of Conduct. We (psychology today)are the sole interpreter of the Site rules of conduct described in these Terms of Use. Users who violate these rules may have their access and use of the Site suspended or terminated at our discretion. We may at any time take any action with regard to user materials that we deem in our sole discretion to be necessary or appropriate.

a) Posting Rules.

i)....
(5) anything that is sexually explicit, obscene, libelous, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, or hateful; or (6) anything that is embarrassing or offensive to another person, group or entity.

I admit to frequently being "a bit harsh." It's due to an acknowledged character flaw. I have never been able to deal well with ignorance, especially willful ignorance as I see on here. SO I admit it, I am not perfect.

BTW, Here is the definition of dogmatism:

dogmatism . a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.

2. the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises. — dogmatist, n. — dogmatic, adj.

No 'you' (or your managing creators ) are not a 'bit harsh' - and unless Psychology Today has contrived to remove most of 'your' previous posts - there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that 'you' frequently post obscenity, abuse, and disgusting offensive language. That is not 'a bit harsh' - that is lowlife trolling. And should be removed if it has not been already.
Everyone - go check the posts - see if the 'smith ID's offensive catalogue of abuse has been removed or not!
That may give you some more insight into the working of this forum.

James Smith wrote:

I admit to frequently being "a bit harsh." It's due to an acknowledged character flaw. I have never been able to deal well with ignorance, especially willful ignorance as I see on here. SO I admit it, I am not perfect.

2) Rules of Conduct. We are the sole interpreter of the Site rules of conduct described in these Terms of Use. Users who violate these rules may have their access and use of the Site suspended or terminated at our discretion. We may at any time take any action with regard to user materials that we deem in our sole discretion to be necessary or appropriate.

a) Posting Rules.

i) Materials you post to the Site may not contain: (1) URLs or links to web sites that compete with the Site; (2) copyrighted material (unless you own the copyright or have the owner's permission to post the copyrighted material); (3) trade secrets (unless you own them or have the owner's permission to post them); (4) material that infringes on or misappropriates any other intellectual property rights, or violates the privacy or publicity rights of others; (5) anything that is sexually explicit, obscene, libelous, defamatory, threatening, harassing, abusive, or hateful; or (6) anything that is embarrassing or offensive to another person, group or entity.

BTW, Here is the definition of dogmatism:

dogmatism . a statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.

2. the use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises. — dogmatist, n. — dogmatic, adj.

While I do think James is a bit harsh with the words I agree with in practice.

How can you call atheism dogmatic? How can requiring evidence to believe in something be dogmatic? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

I think you also might be from the Psychology Today (or possibly other) research team. The 'smith' character, has been repeatedly, many many times, obscene, offensive, abusive, insulting,mawkish and dull.
For you to describe him as a 'bit harsh with words' looks suspiciously like a cover-up to anyone who has followed this discussion.
If you support the idea of permitting verbal abuse online, you place yourself, either on the same lowlife level - or - in the same team of fake ID researchers.
I dont approve of using people as guinea pigs for underhand research purposes. There is an address to report abusive postings, the results from the effort of doing so - could speak for themselves.

James, I can notice a little arrogance in your comment, as well, but I have not right to blame you for that. I can only simply say that you have no eyes to see and ears to hear because of your (or our, if you want) compulsory education and daily "sandwich" propaganda (I can't blame you for that, either). At the end, I'll say that God is inside you keeping a balance in Your human bean (your are attempting to destroy), try to understand me, please. Concerning human behavior,I want to let you know, it is caused by our upbringing, education and social conditions we are living in. I'll pray for you James: God, please, forgive him for he know not what he does. Kind regards!

It's the religious that have been brainwashed into believing in a god with no supporting evidence at all.

The daily propaganda comes from the religious reich who insist upon imposing their sick, twisted beliefs upon everyone.

"You'll pray for me?" That's typical christian arrogance. It's offensive and smug. What if a satan (who does not exist, either) worshiper said, "I'll sacrifice a couple of babies to Lord Satan for you"? Would you be offended? Yet, you think you can say or do anything and not be at all concerned that you are being offensive or arrogant.

I know exactly what I am doing. It is you that refuses to recognize facts, accept absurd beliefs without question, and is a disgrace to human intelligence. You should think that your god gave you intelligence. If so, don't you suspect it is offensive to that god to discard it?

I have posted many proofs here of the absurd, false, and evil effects of religion. You have rejected truth and rational thinking in favor of willful ignorance.

I believe the burden of proof resides with atheists. Please prove to me why God does not exist. If you point to science, which was created by humans, for humans, I think it rather ridiculous as humans are riddled with imperfections and fallacies. A common atheistic fallacy is to point to "science" as the end all be all answer. Well, I think the world isn't flat. But, science used to say it was. And, science used to say that opium was good for colds. Point being, if humans created it, it is flawed. In my mind, God absolutely exists because something (i.e the universe) cannot just "be created" out of nothing. The universe grows and has a purpose, what drives it? Has to be someone or something much smarter than us. Science is merely a postulation, it is not the end all be all. Humans are too flawed to make a statement that can't eventually be refuted. I am not here to prove to you that God exists, you obviously have already decided that He does not. But, saying we are believing in fairy tales is just plain attacking. I am more apt to listen to logic and reason that attacks. Just sayin.

Because you "believe" something, it is automatically true. That is the foundation of all religion, belief before facts.

You believe the burden of proof resides with atheists? That's total nonsense and you know it. What you are pitifully attempting to do is evade the direct question of proving there is a god. You may be deluding yourself, but not anyone else. But then, self-delusion is what supports religions, so there's no surprise there.

The church also used to insist that the sun revolved around the earth and punished anyone that said it did not. Nor sis science ever say that the world was flat. That's another lie from you. Anyone that lives by the sea, as most people always have can readily observe the curvature of the earth. Also, all sailors knew the world was round because a ship sailing away from them disappeared hull first, then the masts. This could only happen on a round world. With an approaching ship, the opposite was true. SO your statement is a bald-faced lie.

The universe cannot be created out of nothing? Then how did your god do it? FYI, moron, I have never heard a scientist state the universe was created out of "nothing". Only willfully ignorant theists tell that lie.

You are willing to listen to logic and reason? Since when? If that were true, you would not be a stubborn;y stupid theist. That's not an attack, it's a statement of fact.

Again, prove anything you have ever said i your entire life is true. Prove anything I have ever posted is not true. Each time you evade those challenges, you're admitting I am right and you are the determinedly dumb person I've shown you to be.

To begin, Atheists lack belief in Gods/Goddesses. We do not claim that god does not exist, we just think it extremely unlikely, ascribing it the same odds as fairies, hob-goblins and unicorns. However, to answer your questions about claims....

So if I claim that once a month I turn into a unicorn, it is not for me to prove my claim, it is for you to disprove it? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (hint: the bible is the claim, not the evidence). All you are doing is shifting the goalposts because you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

As for the "something out of nothing" you are doing nothing but showing your ignorance. Nobody ever said that (Second Hint: A singularity is not "nothing") and at the same time as you are stating this you are also conflating several different scientific theories into one to try and prove your point. Abiogenesis, Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary science are three different things. Also, if something cannot come from nothing, where did your god come from?

Lastly, science claimed the earth to be flat. No, no it didn't. Religion did, I will leave you this quote from Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521: "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."

I hope this helps to answer your questions and hopefully leads you to question rather than to blithely parrot what you have heard from others.

// It would be like somebody insulting your best friend or taking a whack at him, that's the kind of relationship we have with the God we believe in and why we can't help feeling the need to speak out. //

The real difference is that we can show anyone that cares to ask, our best friend. We can show that he is real and exists in the real world, making a real impact on the real world.

This is something all theists are unable to do with regards to their gods.

At least you have never provided any evidence for his existence. When will you theist understand that faith means nothing. Anyone can have faith in anything they want to have it in, but that does not make it likely or true.

As I have so often said, "Faith and belief are the same thing. They are accepting as true that for which there is no supporting evidence and even much evidence against it."

I have also often pointed believers to my essay on faith at:

https://slrman.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/80/

Very often, they take the position that dislike or disbelief is proof of error as much as faith is proof of existence of their deity. Both positions illustrate their irrational discarding of facts and logic.

My post is to clarify the difference between real and imagined 'power', identified as 'god'. There are clear reasons why atheism &/or anti-theism becomes popular in societies that succeed and prosper, materially; so that their inhabitants lose the sense of *terror in being alone* that is a common feature of chaos/lack of order/brutality/injustice/poverty etcetc of groups of people without an organized system.

Even the worst dictatorships might give a more convincing sense of 'belonging' than isolation or ostrascism or statelessness etc. All of which may be felt as the annihilation of 'self'. and may be the most terrifying condition that any human being can experience.

There is no physical or material comfort in our universe that may be relied upon as infallible. But those things are often the suppose gifts of supernatural deities, rewards for certain behaviours. So many millions of people, most often who suffer poverty or misery - imagine that their comforts depend on appeasing supernatural beings of that kind - and may go on trying to do so - until they have the comfort they feel they need.

'God' however - does prove to be infallible, never in those ways. but in recognizing the mystery & immense power of all we can know of our universe and at the same time, understanding its 'personality' through self knowledge, empathy and the sensation generally called 'loving'.
There is nothing 'supernatural' in any of it. Not being able to describe it or how it 'works', does not render it 'supernatural' - but more clearly - a greater 'natural' than any of us can imagine - our minds are too small, like specks of dust on a chip of a pebble in the ocean.
Far more complex than anything our science can yet explain. Perhaps it may never be explained.

Still - those people who have put this to the test, soon become fully aware of how one person, one child - might communicate with and be strengthened by the experience, the knowledge of 'god'.

All the civilized societies of the world might collapse or be lost - as many have already been, and many people on this forum must have already experienced for themselves - but the knowledge of, the experience of, communication with the source of the universe's driving, creative force - remains constant whether it is acknowledged or not.

Its essential to find the state of mind that makes that possible, first in recognizing how very little you know, and how many mistakes you might make in attempting to discover truth - accept a sense of failure and defeat in understanding 'everything', recognize that everything you feel you know of this universe, is so tiny and insignificant. Be aware, be mindful, accept your own potential to be a source of the most appalling errors and results you never intended. Be quiet, patient, wait and listen, in humility, with a receptive and undemanding mind. Like the child you used to be. What is your place, who are you in this mystery and infinity? Be ready to receive the 'voice' of god that might take any shape, any sound, might come from anywhere outside, or inside ones self. This is my way to talk to god - and god never ever fails me.